On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>> There is one sentence (preceding my patch) which I don't quite
>> understand (specifically around the "to"):
>>
>>"...which diagnose when code to is inserted for automatic
>>(re)allocation of a variable during assignment."
> Let me try to explai
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
There is one sentence (preceding my patch) which I don't quite
understand (specifically around the "to"):
"...which diagnose when code to is inserted for automatic
(re)allocation of a variable during assignment."
Let me try to explain what the warning does and what
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Well, "flag" is GCC teminology (see "man gcc"), though it seems to be
> only used for the -f* options while I (mis)used it here for -W*. I
> think it is better to use the more common term "command-line option".
Okay, so I went ahead and applied the patc
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
One question: in general we are using the term "command-line option".
You are introducing two uses of "flag", and the two existing uses of
that are also in the Fortran section. Is this Fortran terminology or
would it be fine to make this more consistent?
Well, "flag" is G
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>> I noticed you are using ..., as in e,
>> which we usually don't. Why that?
> My impression was that a one-letter didn't stand out enough and
> looked rather odd; if you think it improves consistency or readability,
> feel free to change it.
That's a
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
I went ahead and made some smaller changes, patch below.
Thanks.
I noticed you are using ..., as in e,
which we usually don't. Why that?
My impression was that a one-letter didn't stand out enough and
looked rather odd; if you think it improves consistency or readab
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> I have committed the patch as obvious, however, I am happy for any
> comments.
I went ahead and made some smaller changes, patch below.
I noticed you are using ..., as in e,
which we usually don't. Why that?
Gerald
Index: changes.html
==
